Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Crew Performance”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Astronauts' Performance: The Retention and Transfer of Training

The space environment imposes on the astronaut crew significant physiological, psycho-social, and cognitive loads that can not be replicated on the ground. These loads likely impact crew performance. To date, no systematic data collection has taken place to understand the effects of such loads on crew members’ ability to retain trained knowledge and skills, and to transfer such knowledge and skills to novel situations. The research described here was originally designed to be the first such study to systematically collect data on the effects of long duration space flight on training retention and transfer. Because current theories of retention and transfer are based on results obtained in university laboratories using undergraduate students as research participants, and because crew time in space is very expensive, this study was designed to compare the performance of 4 groups of subjects: crew members in space, crew members on the ground, crew-like subjects, and university undergraduate students. Results from the ground-phase of the study reported here demonstrate that crew members’ performance under cognitive load can not be predicted from the performance of university undergraduate students. It is still an open question the extent to which crew members’ cognitive performance in space can be predicted from the performance of crew members on the ground.

training↗
NASA NTRS1989

Assessment of pilot workload with the introduction of an airborne threat-alert system

Simulated line operations were used to assess the value of the TCAS on the pilot's ability to avoid a collision and to determine the effects of various display configurations and information contents on the flight-crew performance and workload. The crew flew a Phase II Link/Boeing 727 simulator in a simulated ATC environment. Four levels of collision avoidance information were evaluated using the following TCAS display formats: no TCAS information, TCAS information with no traffic display information, TCAS information with threat-activated traffic display information, and TCAS information with a full-time traffic display of threat information. It was found that the use of a threat-activated TCAS display significantly reduced the first officers' workload was significantly reduced by the threat-activated TCAS display, as were the workloads of the captain and the second officer.

Battiste, Vernol↗
NASA NTRS2009

Bioavailability of Promethazine during Spaceflight

Promethazine (PMZ) is the choice anti-motion sickness medication for treating space motion sickness (SMS) during flight. The side effects associated with PMZ include dizziness, drowsiness, sedation, and impaired psychomotor performance which could impact crew performance and mission operations. Early anecdotal reports from crewmembers indicate that these central nervous system side effects of PMZ are absent or greatly attenuated in microgravity, potentially due to changes in pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics in microgravity. These changes could also affect the therapeutic effectiveness of drugs in general and PMZ, in particular. In this investigation, we examined bioavailability and associated pharmacokinetics of PMZ in astronauts during and after space flight. Methods. Nine astronauts received, per their preference, PMZ (25 or 50 mg as intramuscular injection, oral tablet, or rectal suppository) on flight day one for the treatment of SMS and subsequently collected saliva samples and completed sleepiness scores for 72 h post dose. Thirty days after the astronauts returned to Earth, they repeated the protocol. Bioavailability and PK parameters were calculated and compared between flight and ground. Results. Maximum concentration (Cmax) was lower and time to reach Cmax (tmax) was longer in flight than on the ground. Area under the curve (AUC), a measure of bioavailability, was lower and biological half-life (t1/2) was longer in flight than on the ground. Conclusion. Results indicate that bioavailability of PMZ is reduced during spaceflight. Number of samples, sampling method, and sampling schedule significantly affected PK parameter estimates.

Boyd, Jason L.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Development and Execution of Autonomous Procedures Onboard the International Space Station to Support the Next Phase of Human Space Exploration

Now that major assembly of the International Space Station (ISS) is complete, NASA's focus has turned to using this high fidelity in-space research testbed to not only advance fundamental science research, but also demonstrate and mature technologies and develop operational concepts that will enable future human exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit. The ISS as a Testbed for Analog Research (ISTAR) project was established to reduce risks for manned missions to exploration destinations by utilizing ISS as a high fidelity micro-g laboratory to demonstrate technologies, operations concepts, and techniques associated with crew autonomous operations. One of these focus areas is the development and execution of ISS Testbed for Analog Research (ISTAR) autonomous flight crew procedures intended to increase crew autonomy that will be required for long duration human exploration missions. Due to increasing communications delays and reduced logistics resupply, autonomous procedures are expected to help reduce crew reliance on the ground flight control team, increase crew performance, and enable the crew to become more subject-matter experts on both the exploration space vehicle systems and the scientific investigation operations that will be conducted on a long duration human space exploration mission. These tests make use of previous or ongoing projects tested in ground analogs such as Research and Technology Studies (RATS) and NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO). Since the latter half of 2012, selected non-critical ISS systems crew procedures have been used to develop techniques for building ISTAR autonomous procedures, and ISS flight crews have successfully executed them without flight controller involvement. Although the main focus has been preparing for exploration, the ISS has been a beneficiary of this synergistic effort and is considering modifying additional standard ISS procedures that may increase crew efficiency, reduce operational costs, and raise the amount of crew time available for scientific research. The next phase of autonomous procedure development is expected to include payload science and human research investigations. Additionally, ISS International Partners have expressed interest in participating in this effort. The recently approved one-year crew expedition starting in 2015, consisting of one Russian and one U.S. Operating Segment (USOS) crewmember, will be used not only for long duration human research investigations but also for the testing of exploration operations concepts, including crew autonomy.

beyond low earth orbit (BLEO)↗
NASA NTRS1994

Decision Making in Action: Applying Research to Practice

The importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers, aviation, and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment: Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful in improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multi-dimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for training will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗
NASA NTRS1994

Decision Making in Action: Applying Research to Practice

The importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. A similar observation has been made in nuclear power plants. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful in improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multidimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for spaceflight and training for offshore installations will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗
NASA NTRS1994

Decision Making in Action

The importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. A similar observation has been made in nuclear power plants. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful in improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multidimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for spaceflight and training for offshore installations will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗
NASA NTRS1995

Decision Making in the Airplane

The Importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers, aviation, and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful In improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multi-dimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking In response to a problem, This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for training will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗
NASA NTRS2020

Effects of Long-Duration Space Flight on Training Retention and Transfer

The space environment imposes on the astronaut crew significant physiological, psycho-social, and cognitive loads that can not be replicated on the ground. These loads likely impact crew performance. To date, no systematic data collection has taken place to understand the effects of such loads on crew members ability to retain trained knowledge and skills, and to transfer such knowledge and skills to novel situations. The research described here was originally requested by HRP management to be the first such study to systematically collect data on the effects of long duration space flight on training retention and transfer. Because current theories of retention and transfer are based on results obtained in university laboratories using undergraduate students as research participants, and because crew time in space is very expensive, this study was designed to compare the performance of 4 groups of subjects: crew members in space, crew members on the ground, crew-like subjects, and university undergraduate students. Results from the ground-phase of the study reported here demonstrate that crew members performance under cognitive load can not be predicted from the performance of university undergraduate students. It is still an open question the extent to which crew members cognitive performance in space can be predicted from the performance of crew members on the ground.

Barshi, Immanuel↗
NASA NTRS2020

Effects of Long-Duration Space Flight on Training Retention and Transfer

The space environment imposes on the astronaut crew significant physiological, psycho-social, and cognitive loads that can not be replicated on the ground. These loads likely impact crew performance. To date, no systematic data collection has taken place to understand the effects of such loads on crew members’ ability to retain trained knowledge and skills, and to transfer such knowledge and skills to novel situations. The research described here was originally requested by HRP management to be the first such study to systematically collect data on the effects of long duration space flight on training retention and transfer. Because current theories of retention and transfer are based on results obtained in university laboratories using undergraduate students as research participants, and because crew time in space is very expensive, this study was designed to compare the performance of 4 groups of subjects: crew members in space, crew members on the ground, crew-like subjects, and university undergraduate students. Results from the ground-phase of the study reported here demonstrate that crew members’ performance under cognitive load can not be predicted from the performance of university undergraduate students. It is still an open question the extent to which crew members’ cognitive performance in space can be predicted from the performance of crew members on the ground.

training↗
NASA NTRS1990

Preliminary results from the evaluation of Cockpit Resource Management training - Performance ratings of flightcrews

The first data from the NASA/University of Texas Crew Performance project on the behavior of flightcrews with and without formal training in Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) is reported. Expert observers made detailed ratings of 15 components of crew behavior in both line operations and in full mission simulations. The results indicate that such training in crew coordination concepts increases the percentage of crews rated as above average in performance and decreases the percentage rated as below average. The data also show high and unexpected degrees of variations in rated performance among crews flying different aircraft within the same organization. It was also found that the specific behaviors that triggered observer ratings of above or below average performance differed markedly between organizations. Characteristics of experts' ratings and future research needs are also discussed.

Helmreich, Robert L.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Crew behavior and performance in space analog environments

The objectives and the current status of the Crew Factors research program conducted at NASA-Ames Research Center are reviewed. The principal objectives of the program are to determine the effects of a broad class of input variables on crew performance and to provide guidance with respect to the design and management of crews assigned to future space missions. A wide range of research environments are utilized, including controlled experimental settings, high fidelity full mission simulator facilities, and fully operational field environments. Key group processes are identified, and preliminary data are presented on the effect of crew size, type, and structure on team performance.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Navigational demands of low-level helicopter flight

The present study was designed to assess the verbal references to map, terrain, direction, and position, that navigators and pilots communicate during a simulated low-level flight. Two-person crews were asked to communicate normally while negotiating six short flight missions that varied widely in regard to map-terrain characteristics. Half of the crews performed the exercises with fixed, north-up maps and the other half used movable maps that were adjusted to maintain a track-up correspondence to the flight route. An analysis was performed to compare differences in crew communication patterns between map orientations, characteristics, and navigation tasks. The results showed differences in the frequency of communication across categories for map characteristics but not for map orientations or tasks. A difference in the proportion of communications between pilot and navigator occurred when crew were lost. Pilots communicated more than navigators when crews were lost and the reverse was true when crews were not lost. The results support and extend findings from a distance error performance analysis performed on the same flight missions.

Delzell, Susanne↗
NASA NTRS1994

Shared Problem Models and Crew Decision Making

The importance of crew decision making to aviation safety has been well established through NTSB accident analyses: Crew judgment and decision making have been cited as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents in commercial air transport, general aviation, and military aviation. Yet the bulk of research on decision making has not proven helpful in improving the quality of decisions in the cockpit. One reason is that traditional analytic decision models are inappropriate to the dynamic complex nature of cockpit decision making and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions. A new model of dynamic naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove more useful for training or aiding cockpit decision making. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulation and National Transportation Safety Board accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation and reflect the crew's metacognitive skill. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relation between communication that serves to build performance. Implications of these findings for crew training will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Health and Performance (CHP) Technology Roadmaps

The Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) – Crew Health and Performance (CHP) Systems Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) is a community of practice (not a funded program) sponsored by Headquarters to develop, retain, and infuse the ECLSS and CHP capabilities necessary to enable the human exploration of the Moon and Mars through the integration and empowerment of experts across NASA, other government agencies, commercial industry, and academia. The goals of the SCLT are as follows: Use the Architecture Definition Document use cases and functions to identify gaps in NASA’s current technological capabilities to meet Agency objectives and develop strategies and roadmaps for closing such gaps Make technical/strategic recommendations on ECLSS and CHP technology development efforts and investments for PPBE, acquisition strategies, and leveraging NASA’s critical capabilities Establish key performance parameters and participate in key program and project reviews Maintain cognizance of relevant ECLSS and CHP national and international technology activities in government, industry, and academia, specifically, emerging innovations and technologies, trends, and opportunities Coordinate with commercial and international partners to identify areas of mutual interest and cooperation Support future mission and system architecture studies for human exploration This document is intended to be a comprehensive overview of the strategic development plans, or Roadmaps, of key technologies and capabilities identified by the SCLT. Each Roadmap is organized by Capability Gap as the gap name and number appears in STARPort, follows a fiscal year timeline, and displays any additional information on milestones, decision points, or important details on the right-hand side of the page. The Roadmaps should be used to facilitate discussion, decision making, and planning for programs and development projects, but are not expected to accurately depict the details and statuses of the projects and tasks appearing within the plans.

Human Health and Performance↗
NASA NTRS2005

STS-114: Discovery Day 3 Mission Status Briefing

Paul Hill, STS-114 Lead Shuttle Flight Director and John Shannon, Space Shuttle Flight Operations and Integration Manager are seen in this STS-114 flight day three Mission Status Briefing. Hill expresses that the Discovery Orbiter is performing beautifully and that STS-114 crew performed a picture perfect rendezvous. He also shows a video of the Rendezvous Pitch Maneuver (RPM) where Commander Eileen Collins slowly flips Discovery in a circle to give the Expedition 11 crew a view of Discovery's heat resistant tiles. He talks about the removal of the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) from Discovery's payload bay using the ISS Robotic Arm. Shannon discusses two objectives that his team is fulfilling on this mission. They include: 1) Understanding the health of Space Shuttle Discovery; and 2) Assessing the performance of the External Tank. Questions from the news media pertaining to the life expectancy of the Space Shuttle Discovery, battery lifetime on the wing leading edge impact sensors, foam loss, PAL ramps, and the safety of the Space Shuttle Discovery are addressed.

Source record↗